Substantially All Assets

Statutes

Hollinger v Hollinger International (Del Ch 7.29.04)

§ 271.1

Gimbel v Signal Cos aff'd 316 A2d 619

§ 271.2

Katz v Bregman appeal refused sub nom Plant Indus v Katz
Wingate v Bercut

§ 271.3

Gimbel v Signal Cos aff'd 316 A2d 619 9
Philadelphia Natl Bank v BSF Co rev'd 204 A2d 746
Atwood Grain & Supply Co v Growmark Inc
Katz v Bregman appeal refused sub nom Plant Indus v Katz
Whittaker Corp v Edgar
Oberly v Kirby
In re Multiponics Inc
Thorpe v Cerbco Inc

§ 271.4.1

§ 271.4.2

§ 271.4.3

§ 271.4.4

§ 271.5

Alcott v Hyman aff'd 208 A2d 501

§ 271.6

Winston v Mandor

§ 271.6.1.1

§ 271.6.1.2

Singer v Magnavox Co overruled on other grounds Weinberger v UOP Inc

§ 271.6.2

Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848

§ 271.6.2.1

Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848
Gimbel v Signal Cos. aff'd 316 A2d 619
Alcott v Hyman aff'd 208 A2d 501
Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp
Smith v Good Music Station Inc
Katz v Bregman appeal refused sub nom Plant Indus
v Katz
Great W Producers Co-Operative v Great W United Corp

§ 271.6.2.2

Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A.2d 848
Unocal Corp v Mesa Petroleum Co
Gimbel v Signal Cos aff'd 316 A2d 619
Alcott v Hyman aff'd 208 A2d 501
Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225

§ 271.6.2.3

Marks v Wolfson citing Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd
128 A2d 225
Bennett v Breuil Petroleum Corp
Smith v Good Music Station Inc
Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225
Anderson v St Louis Coke & Iron Corp
Abelow v Symonds aff'd sub nom Abelow v Midstates
Oil Corp

§ 271.6.2.4

Marks v Wolfson
Gimbel v Signal Cos aff'd 316 A2d 619
Alcott v Hyman aff'd 208 A2d 501
Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225

§ 271.6.3

Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp
Gimbel v Signal Cos aff'd 316 A2d 619
Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225
Alcott v Hyman aff'd 208 A2d 501 quoting Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp
Abelow v Symonds aff'd sub nom Abelow v Midstates Oil Corp
Gottlieb v Heyden Chem Corp 90 A2d 660 on reargument
91 A2d 57 adhered to 92 A2d 594
Beard v Elster
Lewis v Hat Corp.
Gropper v North Central Texas Oil Co
Manacher v Reynolds

§ 271.7.1

Abelow v Symonds aff'd sub nom Abelow v Midstates
Oil Corp
Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848
Marks v Wolfson
Gropper v North Central Texas Oil Co
Sterling v Mayflower Hotel Corp

§ 271.7.2

§ 271.7.2.1

§ 271.7.2.2

Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225
Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848

§ 271.7.2.3

Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848
Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp
Abelow v Symonds aff'd sub nom Abelow v Midstates
Oil Corp
Gimbel v Signal Cos aff'd 316 A2d 619

§ 271.7.2.4

Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225
Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848
Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp

§ 271.7.2.5

Abelow v Symonds aff'd sub nom Abelow v Midstates
Oil Corp
Rosenblatt v Getty Oil Co
Baron v Pressed Metals Inc aff'd 123 A2d 848
Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp

§ 271.7.2.6

Schiff v RKO Pictures Corp

§ 271.8

§ 271.9

Cottrell v Pawcatuck Co aff'd 128 A2d 225

§ 271.10.1

§ 271.10.3

Philadelphia Natl Bank v BSF Co rev'd 204 A2d 746

§ 271.11

Heilbrunn v Sun Chem Corp
Hariton v Arco Elecs Inc
Orzeck v Englehart
Field v Allyn aff'd 467 A2d 1274
Baker v Providence & Worcester Co rev'd 378 A2d 121
Rauch v RCA Corp
Alcott v Hyman aff'd 208 A2d 501

Cases

US Bank NA v Angeion Corp (Ct App Minn 2000)

General Motors Class H Shareholders Litigation
(Del Ch 1999)

Apple Computer Inc v Exponential Technology Inc (Del Ch 1999)
Article on Apple v Exponential

Cyrix Corp v Intel Corp v SGS Thomson (ED Texas 1992)

Sharon Steel Corp v Chase Manhattan Bank (2d Cir 1982)

Katz v Bregman (Del Ch 1981)

Story v Kennecott Copper Corp (NY Sup C 1977)

Gimbel v Signal (Del Ch 1974) aff'd (Del 1974)

BSF Co v Philadelphia National Bank (Del Ch 1964)
reversed on other grounds (Del 1964)

Precedent

Summary

Covers both

(i) statutory shareholder approval requirements, and
(ii) debt indenture negative covenants

Decisions will sometimes distinguish between the two

In Hollinger (2004), Delaware court revisited meaning of Delaware shareholder approval requirement

Statutory Shareholder Approval Requirements

Delaware GCL § 271

New York BCL § 909

Model Business Corporation Act Ch 12

Disposition of Assets
1999 amendment created a "safe harbor"

Debt Indenture Negative Covenants

ABA model indenture

Model successor obligation terms

Hollinger Inc v Hollinger Int'l Inc (Del Ch 2004)

Text of opinion

Decision revisits meaning of DGCL § 271

Conrad Black sought to enjoin sale of trophy newspapers, invoking DGCL § 271
Prior decision held that he had contractually agreed to sale process
Following allegations that Black had looted the companies

Treats indirect subsidiary as directly held, for purposes of applying DGCL § 271

Essentially, court holds that "substantially all" doesn't mean "about half"

Applies standards developed in Gimbel v Signal Cos
Here company would retain profitable, albeit less prestigious, newspapers
Sale would have little effect on pro forma EBITDA

Court notes that when DGCL § 271 has been applied, there has always been a record showing great doubt about the viability of the remaining business

// This display the document title in the html page document.write(document.title);